Morigaonjudiciary.gov.in

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MORIGAON
[Committed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
Present : Md. I. Hussain, Appearance for the Parties
Advocate for the State :- Mr. P.B. Dey, P.P.
Advocate for the accused :- Mr. U.C. Roy, Advocate
Date of recording Evidence :- 24.01.2012, 05.03.2012,
J U D G M E N T
1. Prosecution case in brief is that the informant Miss Romina
Begum lodged an ejahar at Mikirbheta P.S. on 10.12.2010, alleging inter alia
that on 08.12.2010 at about 4.00 P.M. accused Wahab Ali lifted her 5 years old
daughter Yasmin Sultana by gazing her mouth with cloth, while she was
playing with Bhonti Begum, on the road, and took her to the backside of the
house of Phukan Ali and tried to commit rape on her. Fortunately, Peleni
Begum saw and her daughter saved. Her husband was absent in the house so, it
was delayed in filing the ejahar. The O/C Mikirbheta P.S. registered the ejahar
as Mikirbheta P.S. Case No. 150/2010; under Section 376(f)/511 I.P.C. and
started investigation. After completion of the investigation, I.O. submitted
charge sheet against the accused Wahab Ali under Section 376(f)/511 I.P.C.
showing him absconder. The case was registered as G.R. Case No. 1266/2011.
On appearance of the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Morigaon, copies of the materials were furnished and the case was committed
under Section 209 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 26.09.2011.
2. After receipt of the case record on committal, it was registered
as Sessions Case No. 77/2011. On perusal of the materials and after hearing
both sides, charge was farmed by learned Session Judge Sri P.K. Das, under
Section 376(f)/511 I.P.C. Contents of the charge on being read over and
explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. Prosecution side examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses
including the I.O. and the M.O. The witnesses are – PW-1 Miss Ramina Begum,
PW-2 Miss Yasmin Sultana, alleged victim, PW-3 Miss Morjina begum alias
Bhonti, PW-4 Md. Phukan Ali, PW-5 Md. Babul Ali, PW-6 Rumena Begum,
PW-7 Peleni Begum, PW-8 Sri Bhaskar Kalita, I.O. and PW-9 Dr. S.M.A.
Zakaria M.O. of the case. Defence cross examined the witnesses to rebut the
charge. Plea of the accused is total denial and he examined none in support of
4. Now point for determination has been set up as follows:
Whether the accused Wahab Ali attempted to commit rape on
Yasmin Sultana, aged about 5 years on 08.12.2010 at 4.00 P.M. at the heap of
straw on the backside of the house of Phukan Ali ?
Discussion, Decision and Reasons thereof
5. The allegation against the accused is attempt to commit rape on
a minor. The offence of ‘Rape’ has been defined in Section 375 I.P.C. while the
punishment is prescribed in Section 376 IPC. Those Sections have undergone a
significant change by Criminal Law Amendment Act and several new sections
were added to the offence of rape. Section 376(f) I.P.C. is one such Section
added for punishment of ‘Rape’ on minor. So, in the instant case, prosecution
must have proved that the victim Yasmin Sultana is a minor and accused did
such act which amounts to attempt to commit rape on Yasmin Sultana. In the
light of the above, let us examine the evidence of witnesses to see how far the
prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused person.
The evidence of witnesses are quoted below.
6. (i) PW-1 Ramina Begum stated that the occurrence took place
about a year ago at about 4.00 P.M. in the residential campus of Phukan and
she heard from Peloni Begum. At that time her daughter Yasmin Sultana was
playing with the daughter of Phukan. Accused carried Yasmin to the heap of
thatch by asking Bhonti to leave the place and he committed the incident by
gazing her mouth. Accused was on her daughter. Yasmin returned home and
hide herself under the bed. She saw semen like substance on the abdomen of
Yasmin, and was treated at hospital on the next day. She filed ejahar vide Ext.
1 and Ext. 1(1) is her signature. Peleni informed her incident. Her daughter also
told about the incident. The place of occurrence is not seen from the road.
(ii) PW-2 Yasmin Sultana stated that on the day of occurrence she
was playing with Bhonti in her house. At that time no other persons were there.
Accused asked Bhonti to leave and told that he had work with Yasmin.
Thereafter, accused removed the pant of Yasmin by gazing her mouth. Then
Peloni arrived and scolded the accused for doing such act. Peloni informed the
incident to her mother. She was examined by doctor and her statement was
recorded in the Court. She was not tutored by her mother to depose. She
(iii) PW-3 Morjina alias Bhonti told that she read with Yasmin in
the school. On the day of occurrence she was playing with Yasmin. Accused
came and asked her to leave and kept Yasmin with him. Then she left the place.
(iv) PW-4 Phukon Ali stated that Bhonti Begum is her daughter
and yasmin was playing with Bhonti before the incident. At that time he was at
(v) PW-5 Babul Ali stated that the occurrence took place about a
year ago at the residence of Phukan Ali. He heard that accused committed bad
(vi) PW-6 Rumena Begum stated that the incident occurred about
a year ago. She heard that accused raped Yasmin Sultana in her residence.
Babul Ali, Nayab Ali, Tamij Ali, Hussain Ali are residing near her house. She
returned home in the evening. She came to know about the incident after two
(vii) PW-7 Peloni Begum stated that the occurrence took place
about a year ago at about 4.00 P.M. At that time she was taking ‘but’ at the
courtyard and saw accused took Yasmin to the campus of Phukan and Bhonti
left. She saw that accused touched the chest of Yasmin, took her to a heap of
thatch and he was upon her. She saw accused and Yasmin were sitting.
(viii) PW-8 Bhaskar Kalita stated that on 10.12.2010 he was at
Mikirbheta as attached officer. On that day, the O/C registered Mikirbheta P.S.
Case No. 150/10, u/s 376(f) IPC and endorsed him to investigate. He visited the
place of occurrence, examined witnesses. Victim was medically examined by
own. He prepared the sketch map. Ext. 2 is the sketch map and Ext. 2(1) is his
signature. One birth certificate of the victim was seized from the maternal
uncle of the victim Taznur Ali by Ext. 3 and Ext. 3(1) is his signature. He
collected medical certificate. After completion of investigation he submitted
charge sheet against the accused U/S 376(f)/511 I.P.C. He did not seize wearing
(ix) PW-9 Dr. S.M.A. Zakaria stated that on 09.12.2010 he was
working at Mikirbheta M.P.H. and on that day he examined Yasmin Sultana,
aged 5 years and found mild tenderness over front of her chest, interior lower
abdomen and on and around the groin. He opined that since no vaginal swab
could be examined and on the basis of above finding, it cannot be attributed to
a case of confirmed sexual assault or rape, but it might be a case of attempted
7. After going through the above evidence, it is found that PW-2 is
alleged victim, PW-1 is the mother, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 are hearsay
witnesses, PW-7 is the eye witness, PW-8 is the I.O. and PW-9 is the M.O. The
evidence of the PW-2 disclosed that while she was playing with Bhonti, accused
asked Bhonti to leave as he had work with her. Thereafter, accused gazed her
mouth and remove her pant, then Peloni arrived and scolded accused. She came
to her house. PW-3 Bhonti stated that on the day of occurrence, she was
playing with Yasmin at her house. Then accused came and asked her to leave
and kept Yasmin there. Then she went to other place for playing. On careful
perusal of above evidence, it is found that PW-3 Bhonti Begum extended
support to the evidence of PW-2 that she was playing with PW-3 Bhonti, prior
to alleged occurrence and arrival of the accused. Both the witnesses were cross
examined but defence failed to rebut their evidence that prior to the
occurrence, victim Yasmin was playing with PW-3 Bhonti at their house and
accused arrived and asked Bhonti to leave, so she went to play at other place.
The fact of occurrence after Bhonti left the place, has been disclosed by the
evidence of PW-2 and PW-7. The evidence of Peloni Begum (PW-7) disclosed
that she saw Yasmin with the accused at the heap of thatch and accused
touched the chest of victim Yasmin. On careful perusal of above evidence of
PW-2 and PW-7, it is found that the accused embraced her and touched her
chest and removed her pant. At that time, Peloni arrived and scolded the
accused. Defence failed to rebut their evidence by cross examination, so, fact
remains that accused took the victim Yasmin to the heap of thatch, in the
house of Phukan Ali (PW-4), while she was playing with Bhonti (PW-3), he
touched the chest of PW-2, which in course of growing age, has become breast,
a feminine character, which carries modesty of a woman.
8. The above evidence also got support from the evidence of PW-1,
mother of the victim. She stated that she was informed by Peloni Begum (PW-
7) about the occurrence. PW-7 extended support to this fact that she informed
mother of Yasmin about the occurrence. PW-2 stated that her daughter was
examined by doctor on the next day. Prosecution has examined the M.O. as
PW-9. His evidence disclosed that on 09.12.2010 he examined Miss Yasmin
Sultana, aged about 5 years and found mild tenderness over front of her chest,
interior lower abdomen and on and around the groin. He opined that since no
vaginal swab could be examined and on the basis of his finding, it cannot be
attributed to a case of confirmed sexual assault or rape, but it might be a case
of attempted to assault. The evidence of the M.O. is found corroborating with
the evidence of PW-1 Ramina Begum and PW-7 Peloni Begum. Because, PW-1
stated that the occurrence took place on 08.12.2010 and she took her to the
hospital on the next day morning. Again, PW-7 stated that she saw accused
touched on the chest of Yasmin Sultana and the M.O. found mild tenderness
over front of her chest. M.O. also found mild tenderness over interior of lower
abdomen and around groin of PW-2. Defence though cross examined the above
witnesses, but failed to rebut their above evidence, which makes out a sexual
assault on PW-2 Yasmin Sultana by the accused Wahab Ali.
9. PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 though did not see the occurrence but
they stated that they heard about the occurrence. The victim girl, PW-2 has
stated about the occurrence, which got support from the eye witness PW-7
Peloni Begum and the M.O. PW-9. PW-8 is the I.O. and his evidence disclosed
that the occurrence took place on 08.12.2010 at about 4.00 P.M. and the victim
was medically examined by their own and he did not send her again for medical
examination as the victim is a minor. During investigation, he visited the place
of occurrence, examined the witnesses and prepared sketch map. Ext. 2 is the
sketch map and 2(1) is his signature. He seized one birth certificate and
collected medical certificate. After completion of investigation, he submitted
charge sheet under Section 376(f)/511 IPC against the accused showing him
absconder, as he could not arrest the accused inspite of several attempts. Ext. 4
is the charge sheet and Ext. 4(1) is his signature.
10. From the above discussion on the evidence on record and on
careful scrutiny, it is found that the prosecution evidence could not disclose any
act which amounts to attempt to commit rape by the accused to PW-2 Yasmin
Sultana. But, the evidence of the victim PW-2 and the eye witness PW-7 have
disclosed the offence punishable under Section 354/354B I.P.C. Touching of
chest of a growing girl is clearly an offence of outraging her modesty. In the
instant case, the prosecution evidence disclosed that accused touched the chest
of Yasmin Sultana and the M.O. also found mild tenderness on her chest, which
evidence remained intact and cogent and the accused failed to disprove the
same by cross examination. PW-2 Yasmin Sultana also stated that the accused
removed her pant and then PW-7 arrived. Pant has been used to cover private
parts of a human being and removal of said pant amounts to disrobing or
compelling the woman to be naked as defined in Section 354B I.P.C. The
evidence of PW-2 that the accused removed her pant remained intact and
trustworthy, as defence failed to cross examine on the said evidence except by
putting a suggestion, which was denied by PW-2. So, the act of accused in
removing the pant of Yasmin Sultana amounts to commission of offence as
11. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of the victim Yasmin
Sultana to examine credibility of her evidence, it is found that she was a girl of
about five years age and deposed innocently. Nothing has been found to
disbelieve or discard her evidence. Defence also failed to bring any shadow of
doubt on her evidence by cross examination. Evidence of the victim, can be
taken to hold the accused guilty, even after without corroboration, if the
evidence is found cogent, consistent, truthful, believable and trustworthy.
After going through the evidence of PW-2 Yasmin Sultana, it is found that the
defence failed to rebut her evidence as regard removal of her pant, by cross
examination. So, the evidence of prosecution witnesses in respect of touching
her chest and removing of pant remained intact, cogent and consistent, which
makes the evidence as believable and trustworthy also. The evidence of PW-2
and PW-7 though failed to disclose about committing the offence of rape, but
their un-rebutted evidence clearly constitutes the offence punishable under
Section 354/354B IPC. Because, the evidence disclosed that accused touched
her chest (breast), embraced and removed the pant compelling her to be naked
and all these acts, in my considered opinion, amounts to an offence punishable
under Section 354/354B IPC. In Raju Pandurang Mahale Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 1677, Hon’ble Apex Court held that “act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman”. The essence of a women’s
modesty is her sex and with the above act, it can safely be held that accused
12. It is found from the fact and circumstances of the case that
except the victim and PW-7, no evidence is available to support the
prosecution case. As discussed above, the evidence of the victim Yasmin
Sultana and PW-7, Peloni Begum is found consistent, believable and
trustworthy. So, relying on the decision of the case law reported in 2010 (4) GLT 615, Subrata Das Vs State of Tripura, accused Wahab Ali can be held
guilty punishable under Section 354/453B I.P.C. In paragraph 15 of the
aforesaid case law, it was observed as follows :
“15. From a careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1 in particular, this Court fails to locate basic infirmities in the evidence of PW-1, which may discourage the credence of her evidence. Evidence of PW-1 in the facts and circumstances of the case found truthful, believable and acceptable. She has given consistent evidence in respect of the commission of the rape on her by the appellant. There is no conflict in between the evidence of the prosecutrix deposed during the trial, statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and her initial statement in the form of an FIR. All the three are found consistent in material particulars. To warrant conviction in case of rape if the evidence of the prosecutrix is found truthful, satisfactory, acceptable and consistent no corroboration is required even from the medical testimony. We have already discussed medical evidence and come to a finding that there cannot be any corroboration in between the medical testimony and the testimony of the prosecutrix in view of examination of the prosecutrix after 8 days of the occurrence.”
13. In the light of the above observation, the evidence of victim
Yasmin Sultana and eye witness Peloni Begum is found cogent, intact,
believable and trustworthy. So, basing upon their un-impeached evidence,
accused Wahab Ali can be held guilty for committing an offence punishable
under Section 354/354B I.P.C. It appeared from the record that the accused
was not charged under Section 354/354B IPC but under Section 376(f) IPC,
which is an aggravated form of the offence. So, I am of the opinion that
framing charge of a higher punishment of offence and convicting on an offence
with lesser punishment will not cause prejudice to the accused.
14. In view of my above discussion on the evidence on its entirety,
I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
against the accused Wahab Ali under Section 376(f) I.P.C., but could prove a
case punishable under Section 354/354B I.P.C. vide Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013 (No. 13 of 2013). Accordingly, accused Wahab Ali is
held guilty under Section 354/354B I.P.C.
15. In view of the above discussion and the decision arrived at, I
find and hold that the accused Wahab Ali is guilty of committing an offence
punishable under Section 354/354B I.P.C. Heard the accused on the point of
sentence and his statement is recorded and kept in separate sheet. I have
perused his said statement and also heard the accused personally. Accused
stated that he is an old and ailing person so, he prayed to exonerate him. In the
instant case, the accused appeared to be a person of 50/55 years of age, but the
victim is also found to be a girl of only 5 years of age. So, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, under which it was committed, I do not think it
to be a fit case to deal with leniently. So, I convict the accused Wahab Ali
under Section 354/354B I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year
and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ under Section 354 I.P.C. in default of payment of
fine, accused shall undergo R.I. for another one month and to suffer R.I. for 5
(five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ under Section 354B I.P.C. in default
of payment of fine, accused shall undergo R.I. for another period of 3 (three)
months. Fine, if realized be paid to the victim girl Yasmin Sultana as
compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Accused is acquitted from the charge
of Section 376(f) I.P.C. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of
the opinion that the victim Yasmin Sultana deserves some compensation under
Section 357A Cr.P.C. So, a copy of the Judgment be placed before the Dist.
Legal Service Authority, Morigaon, to fix a reasonable quantum of
compensation to be paid to the victim from the State’s victim compensation
Judgment delivered in the open Court on this 26th day of July,
Dictated & corrected by me Sessions Judge

Why is Chinese Medicine so Effective for Depression? Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, Wellbutrin…these names have become familiar to most of us. Why? Because depression has become so prevalent in our society. We are constantly pressured to do more and get more done, while struggling with the pressures of our personal and professional lives, the economy, and national and world events. Sometimes, de